To complete this peer review you will: a) Read your fellow students' papers, b) Identify the 3 most significant issues/weaknesses in your peer's paper, and c) For each issue/weakness, provide construc

Keywor ds :

door -holding behaviour , prosocial behaviour , gender dif ferences, social norms, courtesy GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 3 Gender Differ ences in Door -Holding Behaviour Holding doors for others is a common courtesy observed in daily life. Historically , it has been often associated with chivalry , which is a trait traditionally linked to the male gender (Eagly & Crowley , 1986). As society moves toward greater gender inclusivity , this behaviour has increasingly been adopted by individuals of all genders as a form of prosocial engagement. Past research supports the reinforcement of gender norms in helping behaviours, indicating that men are more likely to engage in stereotypical acts of assistance. Studies have explored the influence of traditional gender roles on helping behaviours, such as door -holding (Renne & Allen, 1976), the role of social context (Y oder et al., 2002), and the impact of social cues and expectations (Fox et al., 2015; Goldman et al., 1981). The current study aims to examine the role of gender in door -holding behaviour on a university campus to explore whether gender dif ferences exist. T raditionally , gender dif ferences have been linked to various types of helping behaviours. According to the social-role theory , cultural stereotypes regarding gender roles lead to dif ferences in how men and women learn to assist others (Eagly & Crowley , 1986). This theory suggests that men are more inclined to engage in behaviours associated with chivalry and heroism to uphold a defender role (Erdle et al., 1992). Holding the door for someone is a classic example of this behaviour , often perceived as a stereotypical male act. In 1976, Renne and Allen conducted a quasi-field experiment to examine the influence of gender roles on door -holding behaviour . The study involved 22 sociology students observing door -opening episodes. The researchers hypothesized that traditional gender roles associated with door -holding persist. The results confirmed this hypothesis, revealing that males were twice as likely as females to hold the door open for a stranger . Additionally , women were four times more likely to have the door held open for them compared to men, especially when dressed in feminine clothing. The study also GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 4 found that both men and women were more likely to ignore male subjects than hold the door for them (Renne & Allen, 1976) . This study reinforces the idea that gender norms influence door -holding behaviour , with men typically adhering more closely to traditional norms of chivalry . Expanding on this topic, research by Y oder et al. (2002) explored how interpretations of door -holding behaviour may vary across contexts. The researchers hypothesized that contextual factors, particularly in dating scenarios, would significantly influence door -holding behaviour and its connection to gender roles. They conducted an observational study involving male-female pairs in both dating and everyday situations, observing 769 college-aged dyads. The findings revealed that men were more likely to hold doors open in dating contexts compared to everyday interactions. In these scenarios, where gender roles were more pronounced, men’ s behaviour conformed to traditional expectations of helping behaviour (Y oder et al., 2002). The findings highlighted that men held doors open more often, particularly in contexts where gender roles were more visible and expected, further supporting the idea that door -holding remains a gendered practice. In addition to traditional gender roles, the ef fects of social cues and expectations may encourage individuals to engage in reciprocal actions. For instance, Fox et al. (2015) examined how a simple "thank you" can significantly influence an individual's willingness to of fer reciprocal assistance (Fox et al., 2015). The researchers investigated how holding a door in an ef fortful or non-ef fortful manner relates to verbal thanking and reciprocal helping. They measured participants’ responses in terms of verbal thanks, agreement to help with a survey , and assistance in picking up dropped objects. The results showed that intentional ef forts in door -holding significantly increased the likelihood that an individual would of fer verbal gratitude GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 5 or reciprocal assistance (Fox et al., 2015). Similarly , Goldman et al. (1981) tested a similar theory involving courteous behaviour among dif ferent genders. They hypothesized that intentionally holding a door open would increase the likelihood of receiving courtesy in return. The results indicated that individuals were more likely to reciprocate acts of courtesy , in the form of holding the door , if they were aware that someone had held the door open for them first (Goldman et al., 1981). These findings indicated that men exhibited more courteous behaviors than women, reinforcing the gendered nature of door -holding and highlighting how social expectations such as the norm of reciprocity , influence these interactions. Building on previous research, the present study examines the association between gender and door -holding behaviour . This observational study will involve 60 university students, including 30 females and 30 males, at the University of Alberta. I will unobtrusively observe the participants’ interactions as they approach a door in front of a stranger . Previous research indicated that men were more likely than women to open a door for a stranger , which forms the basis for the current hypothesis that gender dif ferences in door -holding behaviour persist in today’ s society .

GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 6 Method Participants I selected 60 participants for this study using a convenience sample at the University of Alberta. I observed the first 30 male-presenting individuals and the first 30 female-presenting individuals who entered the Student Union Building through the main doors. Although I did not record the participants' ages, they all appeared to fall within the range of young adults. Since the study involved observing public behaviour , thus participant consent was not required. The observations took place on W ednesday , September 15, 2024, between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. MST .

Pr ocedur e In this study , I operationalized door -holding behaviour as the act of holding a door for a stranger behind the participant, either by fully opening it or keeping it ajar for the next person within close proximity . I excluded interactions where the individual entering first used the accessibility button on the door . I recorded the gender of the participant; however , I did not record the gender of the stranger following behind them. W omen were operationally defined as having feminine features, such as longer hair , makeup, and traditionally feminine clothing. In contrast, men were defined as having masculine features, such as facial hair , short haircuts, broader physiques, and traditionally masculine clothing. I excluded individuals who did not fit into one of these categories to maintain consistency in gender classification. I conducted the observations unobtrusively while positioned at a table near the doors of the Student Union Building to avoid influencing participants’ actions. I discreetly recorded door -holding behaviours on my iPad using the GoodNotes app. Immediately after each interaction, I noted the type of GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 7 door -holding behaviour , including whether or not the participant held the door open for a stranger . I was the sole coder for this study , and it was not a blind study , as I was aware of the research question and hypothesis. Results The study found that 23 out of 30 female participants (76.7%) held the door for a stranger , while 7 (23.3%) did not. Among male participants, 26 out of 30 (86.7%) held the door , and 4 (13.3%) did not. A chi-square test of independence was conducted to examine the relationship between gender and door -holding behaviour . The results were ² (1, N = 60) = 1.00, p = 0.32, indicating that there was no statistically significant dif ference between genders. Although men held doors slightly more often, the results contradicted the initial hypothesis and suggested that gender may not influence this behaviour as strongly as previously thought. Discussion The purpose of this study was to explore potential gender dif ferences in the public behaviour of door -holding. Based on prior research suggesting that men might be more inclined to hold doors open, my hypothesis predicted that men would engage in this behaviour more frequently than women. However , the results of the current observational study indicated that there is no statistically significant dif ference between men and women in door -holding behaviour . This outcome dif fers from my original hypothesis, suggesting that, in this sample and context, men and women are equally likely to hold doors open for a stranger . This result aligns with some previous studies while contrasting with others. For example, Renne and Allen (1976) found that men were significantly more likely than women to hold doors open for others. This pattern was attributed to traditional gender roles, where men adhered to norms of chivalry . These findings were further supported by Eagly and Crowley’ s (1986) GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 8 social-role theory , which posits that men adopt behaviours like door -holding to conform to culturally reinforced helper roles. Similarly , Y oder et al. (2002) demonstrated that men were more likely to hold doors in dating contexts, emphasizing how situational factors can influence gendered social expectations. However , the results of my study may indicate that societal norms have shifted over time, reducing the gender disparity in door -holding behaviour . This possibility aligns with studies emphasizing the role of context and social cues over fixed gender norms. For instance, Fox et al. (2015) found that verbal gratitude and reciprocal helping behaviour are influenced by the intentionality of the act, rather than the gender of the person performing it. Similarly , Goldman et al. (1981) highlighted that reciprocal courtesy , such as holding doors open, can be driven by immediate social interactions, not necessarily by gender roles. These findings suggest that modern social dynamics may place a greater emphasis on individual actions and reciprocal norms than on traditional gender expectations. One strength of the study was the operational definitions used to categorize participants by gender presentation, as their physical features made it relatively straightforward to classify individuals as male-presenting or female-presenting. However , coding the door -holding behaviour was less concrete and more subjective. The behaviour varied from one participant to another; for example, some participants explicitly looked back to hold the door , while others held it without acknowledging the person behind them. This variability led to some ambiguity , and I excluded the unclear interactions, which may have af fected the construct validity of the study . Additionally , as the sole observer , I could not confirm inter -rater reliability . While observer bias was minimized by sitting inconspicuously , the lack of inter -rater coding may have introduced bias regarding categorizing behaviours, which could have influenced the validity .

GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 9 The study also faced limitations in generalizability . Since participants were sampled exclusively from the University of Alberta at the Student Union Building, the results may not extend to populations outside the university or fully represent the wider student body . The convenience sampling method could introduce bias and reduce the external validity of the results. Despite this, the study has high ecological validity , as door -holding is a common interaction in daily life, and the unobtrusive observation method ensured that participants were not aware of being observed, leading to natural behaviour . Internal validity was limited due to the observational nature of the study , which lacked an experimental design and control for potential confounding variables. W e can assume that temporal precedence exists, as gender precedes door -holding behaviour , however , covariance was not established. I did not manipulate or assign participants to dif ferent conditions, rather I simply observed them. W ithout random assignment or controlled conditions, it is dif ficult to rule out extraneous variables that may have af fected the results such as the time of the day , location of the door , and weather conditions. Due to the absence of covariance and internal validity , this study cannot support causal claims. Additionally , with regards to statistical validity , the non-significant results suggest that a T ype II error may be present, indicating that the sample size or variability might have been insuf ficient to detect a true ef fect, if one exists. The sample size of 60 participants, was relatively small therefore it may have limited the statistical power of the study , making it harder to identify dif ferences in door -holding behaviour . A lar ger sample size or a more diverse range of observation contexts could potentially reveal trends that were not evident in this study . For future research, one area to explore is the social context of door -holding etiquette, as it relates to the perceived shared ef fort. Helping behaviours such as door -holding may serve as a GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 10 subtle agreement between individuals to minimize collective ef fort, rather than being solely a polite or gendered behavior . This perspective reframes door -holding as a practical, cooperative action based on ef ficiency , potentially altering its interpretation as only a courteous gesture. Studies could investigate if the shared ef fort perspective influences door -holding behaviour in various contexts, examining dif ferent genders, which may provide insights into traditional gender expectations (Santamaria & Rosenbaum, 201 1). Additionally , the research could explore how etiquette-driven behaviours change in dif ferent cultural or social environments, beyond the university setting. By examining more diverse samples, such as by conducting cross-cultural studies, researchers could look at the results in dif ferent cities or countries (Levine et al., 2001). This could give insight into if the norms and expectations for door -holding are universal or if social norms and cultural context, af fect an individual’ s perception of door -holding. This broader understanding would provide insight into how social and practical motivations shape etiquette and whether they adapt across settings and groups.

GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 1 1 Refer ences Eagly , A. H., & Crowley , M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.or g/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283 Erdle, S., Sansom, M., Cole, M. R., & Heapy , N. (1992). Sex dif ferences in personality correlates of helping behavior . Personality and Individual Dif ferences, 13(8), 931–936. https://doi.or g/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90010-m Fox, J., & others. (2015). The role of gender in online help-seeking: A multi-method approach. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.or g/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01737 Goldman, M., Florez, C., & Fuller , G. L. (1981). Factors af fecting courteous behavior . The Journal of Social Psychology , 1 15(2), 169–174. https://doi.or g/10.1080/00224545.1981.971 1655 Levine, R. V ., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural dif ferences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 32(5), 543–560. https://doi.or g/10.1177/0022022101032005002 Renne, K. S., & Allen, P . C. (1976). Gender and the ritual of the door . Sex Roles, 2(2), 167–174. https://doi.or g/10.1007/BF00287249 Santamaria, J. P ., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (201 1). Etiquette and ef fort: Holding doors for others. Psychological Science, 22(5), 584–588. https://doi.or g/10.1177/095679761 1406444 GENDER DIFFERENCE IN DOOR HOLDING 12 Y oder , J. D., Hogue, M., Newman, R., Metz, L., & LaV igne, T . (2002). Exploring moderators of gender dif ferences: Contextual dif ferences in door -holding behavior . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 32(8), 1682–1686. https://doi.or g/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02769.x